I am a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, I also am a Senior Fellow in International Religious Persecution with the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. I am the author and editor of numerous books, including Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire, The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington, and Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics. I am a graduate of Florida State University and Stanford Law School.

Pyongyang urged the U.S. to “positively respond” to the former’s call for negotiations “without preconditions.” Washington refused to “engage in talks merely for the sake of talks” and insisted that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea commit to denuclearization. The diplomatic impasse on the Korean peninsula continues.

The current situation endangers everyone. The so-called Demilitarized Zone remains the most heavily armed border on earth. No one wants war, but mistake or misjudgment is possible. Although the U.S. and Republic of Korea would triumph in any conflict, the price would be extravagant.

The allies continue to focus on the North’s nuclear program. Last month the U.S., Japan, and South Korea released a joint statement announcing that the path “for the DPRK toward improved relations” is for Pyongyang to take “meaningful steps on denuclearization.” No doubt that is the best outcome. However, it remains the least likely.

North Korea has made acquisition of nuclear weapons a matter of national policy for two decades. In fact, Pyongyang has grown ever more determined to be accepted as a nuclear power, writing its ambition into the country’s constitution.

Ignoring this reality achieves nothing. The North recently declared: “The legitimate status of the DPRK as a nuclear-weapons state will go on and on without vacillation whether others recognize it or not.”

There’s nothing mysterious about North Korea’s program. The advantages of being a nuclear power are many. Most obviously, nuclear weapons offer an effective deterrent. Serbia and Iraq demonstrate the danger of becoming an American target without nukes. Libya demonstrates the danger of becoming an American target after abandoning nukes.

As Henry Kissinger once reportedly observed, even paranoids have enemies. Pyongyang knows that the U.S. means it ill—President George W. Bush famously termed the DPRK a member of the “axis of evil” and said that he “loathed” Kim Jong-il, the current ruler’s father.

President Barack Obama has said less, but American policy remains largely unchanged. The U.S. maintains a defense guarantee with and nearly 30,000 troops in the ROK, has been tightening its alliance with Seoul, sent B-52s and B-2s to overfly the peninsula earlier this year, and conducts annual exercises with the ROK military.

This policy is not in America’s interest. Washington should disengage from the peninsula. That requires turning security for the South over to Seoul. Normalizing relations with North Korea while handing the nuclear issue to its neighbors. And leaving the two Koreas free to decide their future relationship.

First, the U.S. should end its Cold War alliance with South Korea. Six decades ago the Korean War ended. That conflict spawned the “mutual defense” treaty with Seoul, a one-way security guarantee backed by forces stationed in the ROK. Although the American garrison has diminished in size and the South talks of taking on increased security responsibilities, the alliance remains antiquated and one-sided.

Washington’s defense promise obviously benefits the ROK, but makes no sense for America. The Korean peninsula no longer is tied to a global military struggle, as during the Cold War. The likelihood of the DPRK’s Cold War allies, Beijing and Moscow, offering military support to the North in a rerun of the Korean War is vanishingly small. Finally, the South enjoys huge economic and other advantages over North Korea and is capable of defending itself.

Washington should end joint military exercises, give notice of its intention to terminate the security pact, and begin planning the withdrawal of U.S. military forces. The two governments then could negotiate, as equals, terms for future military cooperation. The focus would not be the DPRK, which would be Seoul’s responsibility, but broader regional and global activities in both nations’ interest.

Second, American officials should set aside the nuclear issue in order to engage Pyongyang. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions most directly affect its neighbors. The North lacks any means to attack the U.S.—other than targeting troops which should be brought home from South Korea. Even if the DPRK could act, confronting America would be suicidal, a quality not evident in Pyongyang. Washington should make the one genuine threat, nuclear transfers to non-state actors, a red line. Otherwise the U.S. should turn over the issue to the countries with the most at stake: China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia.

Then the U.S. should indicate its willingness to sign a peace treaty and open diplomatic relations. These long have been North Korean priorities: the North’s ambassador in Geneva, Sin Son-ho, recently held an unprecedented press conference denouncing the U.S. for “the hostile relations between the DPRK and the United States, which can lead to another war at any moment.”

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Mr. Bandow appears to be quite poorly informed on the realities of the security conditions on the other side of the Pacific.

Mr. Bandow’s first misunderstanding is that the ROK government is pre-occupied with North Korea; it isn’t. North Korea ranks at the bottom of the ROK defense officials, who put Japan and China as the biggest external security threats and are beefing up its capability to battle China. the US withdrawal would be China’s dream come true, because the US would lose access to military bases critical in its China containment effort; the Osan air base where the RQ-170 and U-2 are based in and the forthcoming Jeju Naval Base, one of few naval bases in the region able to accommodate carrier battle groups and nuclear submarines, and only 300 miles away from Shanghai. China would love the US to get out of Korea and not fly those spy plane missions and not have access to naval bases that would be used to execute the naval blockage of the Yellow Sea which would choke China’s ability to wage wars.

Secondly, the US would lose access to Chinese ICBM launch early warning from the ROK. While the ROK is not participating in the missile defense program like Japan is, they are willing to provide early ICBM launch warning from China and North Korea through its own anti-ballistic missile defense network called AMD-CELL. Without the early warning from the ROK and no access to the Yellow Sea, the US becomes dependent on radars based in Japan and the massive X-band radar parked in the Pacific Ocean for the ICBM launch detection, but this would add minutes in detection and the critical window of interception during the boost stage is lost. The advantage of Korea provided early warning was demonstrated during the last North Korean rocket launch into orbit, and the Missile Defense officials would have nightmares if they lose this early warning.

So while the defense cooperation may have been one-sided in the past, it is not in 2013, where the US has come to depend on Korea for the execution of its China containment strategy and the Missile Defense. Of course, this may all sounds new to Mr. Bandow, who maybe shocked to learn that the ROK would have wartime control of the USFK troops on December 2015.

As an officer who once served in ROK Forces, I totally agree on Mr. Basu. Pulling off US forces from Korean Peninsula will induce more chaos than Mr. Bandow’s naive, but innocent idea that the region will remain peaceful. Korea, neighbored with China, Japan, and Russia, has been always hotspots between The Continent (Most notably China) and The Ocean power (Japan and the West). No country in the world has to face all those world powers (China, Japan, and Russia). Who else? Israel? Taiwan? The two Koreas issue is not only the issue between Koreans, but more likely involved with all these ambitious world major powers who have capability to make the dream come true.

Also, as Mr. Basu pointed out, ROK FORCES no longer seriously think their counterpart is N. Korea. That is only the great cause of increasing military forces against China or Japan. Without US helps, they can dominate N. Korea in a few days although they will be forced to be more bloods and sweat. That is the same as China or Japan, who have basic plans in case of emergency with Korea or other neighbors. Especially, it is very likely that Chinese will engage with S. Korea in case that N. Korea suddenly collaspse due to coup or natural disaster or whatever, which is why Chinese Shenyang military theater is equipped with high quality officers and good weapon systems even compared to Nanjing military therater, which is responsible for Taiwan matters (Beijing military theater is the best equipped, and Sheyang and Jinan theaters, all of which could be deployed in 24 hrs in case of emergency in Korean Peninsula). This means it clear that without US deterrance, the region will be easily falling into chaos, which will greatly undermines U.S. national interest that Mr. Bandow overlooked.

Plus, without US nuclear umbrella, both S. Korea and Japan will be tempted to develop their nukes, which is, then, more problems. The incumbent President Park’s Dad, Park Chung Hee, was very famous for Koreans not only because of its economic miracles, but also its development to nukes that he thought the nation needed to be armed for the sake of survival when he saw President Carter pull off US Forces from Vietnam and eager to pull of US Forces Korean penninsula also. I can’t tell you in detail, but S. Korea can be armed with nukes in 60-90 days if they want to. They already have enough nuclear materials as well as technology to make it faster.. (Technically, nukes are no longer rocket science, but a graduate student in MIT’s nuclear science can make it if they are equipped).

So pulling off US FORCES from Korea will not only put US in danger of more nukes world, which is directly against Obama’s policy of nuke-free worlds, but also greatly reduces US national interests in many perspectives. As Mr. Basu points out, S. Korea is now determining whether it is more beneficial to get involved in US-led Missile Defense program. My personal opinion is they will not officially support it, nor do they rejects the offer until their national interests are the best fitted. if you go thru S. Korea economy, 25% of total international trade is dependent with China, and another 15% with Chinese oversea (such as Singapore, Taiwan, Hongkong, and other Asian nations dominated by Chinese), meaning if they favors the U.S. only, their economy is only matter of time to get spoiled (For reference, 15% with US, 25% with E.U).

Lastly…. you can never trust Communists. Mr. Bandow’s idea is solely based on an assumption that Communists can negotiate, which is wrong. That is how US and its allies have been plundered by N. Korea’s bluffing more than 20 years, but failed to prevent N. Korea from nuke powers. Plus, N. Korea is total absolutism, meaning even though all N. Koreans die, the dear leader of Kim’s family must survive. What does it mean? The reasosns they come to negotiation is not because they can interact with other people in the world, but only because it is beneficial for Kim’s family. For Westerner, it might be hard to understand, but what average N. Koreans would do, in case when a house is on fire, is to get into fired house and save Kim’s family’s photos first even if there is kids or parents crying for save. One time when N. Korean olympic ceremony team visited S. Korea and saw Kim Jong Il’s photo drizzeled in rainy day on the way to a stadium, they all rushed to the photo in order to not get any rain, and protested S. Korea’s officials that they would not tolerate such brutality. Many N. Korean defector officers confirmed in case of the war, the best way to force N. Korea to cease fires would be to put Kim Jong Il’s photo on tanks, or attach it on my belly, and no N. Koreans would dare to shoot me because they are so afraid of shooting to Kim Jong Il’s face. Likewise, I hope US would not make the same mistakes they did last time. So far, Obama’s administration has been well on the issue. There is no negotiation but forceful choices on N. Korea, which is how Communists accept the reality and ends all atrocities that have been happening in N. Korea.

I forgot to mention, but S. Korea has been probably the best example that U.S. can use to its new candidates in alliance. S. Korea has been now accepted as developed countries by any means (in terms of income, industriliazation, and technology). They are richer than South Europeans, PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain), and come close to France, Germany, and Japan.

They have fairly good system of American way of life such as Democracy, civil liberties, and equal opportunity. Their cultures now dominates Asia and the world, notably K-pop, K-drama, and K-movies, or what’s called as Korean Wave (i.e Gangnam style).

Among U.S. alliance, who are not considered traditionally “First World,” what nation U.S. can advertise as good example “Hey it will be your beneficial to be our alliance for your national interest?” I am saying not like France, Germany, U.K., or Japan, who have been always world major powers and have technology before 1945, but like countries who achieved Independence after 1945? Saudi Arabia? S. Africa? I can tell it is only S. Korea and Israel, but unlike S. Korea, many people in the world hate Israel, notably from middle east.

It is not because I am a Korean American, who would say so, but objectively, I feel it proud that U.S. should be proud of its mentee, S. Korea, and can appeal to its possible alliance if the potential is not sure if it’s good idea to enter U.S. “Look at S. Korea. Their economy is great, they have dozens of world best companies, their living standard is same as developed countries, their culture now gets more popular. Therefore, you will also be able to be like S. Korea if you work hard.”

I don’t think rescinding alliance with S. Korea will benefit U.S. at any cost, rather it will significantly harm U.S.

@Jay I’m not so sure why you would feel proud that Korea is occupied by U.S. military for 60 years, longer than Japanese occupation. It’s a fine line between ‘alliance’ and ‘neo-colonialism’. If you research the history of American Imperialism post 1895, U.S. has been expanding into Asia since the first winning the Spanish-American War, acquiring Puerto Rico, trying to get Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines. Vietnam (failed) and Korea (stalemate). I’m not sure what’s so proud that nearly 30,000 Korean women serve American military in prostitution rings in Korean camp-towns where Koreans are exploited by Imperialism to this day. I don’t buy into the de-nuclearization rhetoric bs U.S. tries to promote while having the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, more than most of the world combined. Keeping Korea without its own nuclear deterrent is a direct way to keep Korea DEPENDENT on U.S. There’s a reason France and India has historically pursued their own nuclear deterrent, it’s an important factor to independence. In order not to be pushed around, it is necessary. What does sovereignty mean to you? Because by basic definition, if you depend on another’s military, if you cannot make your own sovereign military choices, if your country has foreign military occupying, another country pushing trade laws like F.T.A. which harms domestic Korean industries, I’d say keeping this “alliance” (aka neo-colonial relationship) with U.S. does not harm than good. There are many Koreans that also see U.S. presence as an inflaming factor, rather than helping. Majority of Koreans more and more, just want a peace treaty signed and for U.S. to start phasing out their military presence. It is time for Korea to seek more independence. Being occupied this long is not something to be proud of.

Since the Korean War stopped, US’s occupation of South Korea had very little meaning. Strategic location of South Korea has little value since US already has an active military base in Japan. With today’s submarines and air craft carrier group, the military strength can easily be moved in matter of days.

However, US’s presence in South Korea is more symbolic than anything else at this point. Having US base in South Korea gives it a unique access to South Korea from within the country. This obviously goes to all other US bases in foreign territory.

If US does leave South Korea, fore most, the economic aid to South Korea will drastically be reduced. However, this may bring negligible impact to South Korea’s economy. For US, bringing home some 50 to 60 thousand soldiers home would probably be a big welcome.

If North Korea does resume the war which they’ve announced to do so early this year, consider not having a US base in South Korea could bring. If US does decide to enter the war, then they’ll no doubt has to get the approval from the UN and ultimately lose precious time to intervene.

Apparently, you don’t know or understand the issues in this part of the world or care to try…. And don’t even attempt to argue with me, a person who has spent 13 years of his life in the area, mostly in Korea and within 10 miles of the DMZ…

Problem with many journalists, they don’t know the issues and just make up trivia crap to cover for lack of knowledge like you did….

Go back and write your articles about your top 500 businesses where your attended for, and not Foreign Policy or Military Policies that you don’t know anything about!!!!!!